Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).
The Michigan map has a mere 2 out of 14 districts won by Senator John McCain, compared to 12 out of 14 districts won by President Barack Obama.
If anything, the Michigan map well adheres to the notion that competitive seats should be drawn. Greenforest32 is complaining for no reason at all, other than the simple fact that the voters do not prefer his party.
That sounds like the arguments NC Republicans made about their map. They maintained that because Roy Cooper carried all the districts in 2008, their redistricting plan was, holistically, "fair" and "competitive."